Rectification orders cannot alter substantive rights without notice, and amendment is barred once an appeal is already filed.

Rule 154 rectification is limited to clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slip or omission, and it cannot be used to alter substantive rights without notice to affected parties; the absence of prior notice made the rectification orders contrary to natural justice. Section 420(2) of the Companies Act allows amendment of an order to correct a mistake apparent from the record, but its proviso bars such amendment once an appeal has been preferred; because the appeal had already been filed before rectification was entertained, the subsequent proceedings were statutorily barred. The rectification orders were quashed, while a fresh rectification application was left open to be decided in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification orders passed by the Tribunal under Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 were sustainable without notice to the affected parties. (ii) Whether, in view of the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, rectification could be entertained after an appeal had already been preferred.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification orders passed by the Tribunal under Rule 154 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 were sustainable without notice to the affected parties.

Analysis: Rule 154 permits correction only of clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission. Even where the Tribunal acts on its own motion, the power cannot be exercised to alter the rights of parties without affording notice where the proposed correction affects substantive interests. The absence of prior notice before the rectification orders rendered the exercise contrary to basic procedural fairness.

Conclusion: The rectification orders could not be sustained for want of notice and compliance with natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the proviso to Section 420(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, rectification could be entertained after an appeal had already been preferred.

Analysis: Section 420(2) empowers the Tribunal to amend an order to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, but the proviso expressly bars such amendment where an appeal has already been preferred under the Act. Since the appeal had already been filed before the rectification memorandum was entertained, the subsequent rectification proceedings were hit by the statutory embargo. The subsequent alteration of the uploaded docket order was also impermissible without notice to the parties likely to be affected.

Conclusion: The rectification proceedings were not maintainable after the appeal had been preferred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rectification orders were quashed, and the connected appeals were allowed, while leaving open the remedy of a fresh rectification application to be decided in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification power confined to clerical or accidental errors cannot be used to effect substantive alteration of an order without notice to affected parties, and once an appeal has been preferred, the statutory bar in Section 420(2) prevents further amendment of the order.

---